Should the UK leave the EU

One of the things that I have already noticed is the focus on politicians and their characteristics rather than the facts. IDS maybe odious in your opinion (I agree) but that, in itself, does not make staying in a good thing. Some people may love Boris but that, in itself , does not make leaving a good thing. To make the decision based on which characters are on either side does not make sense. I cant stand Reece Mog but that it itself does not make me become an "inner" as their are equally odious politicians on the other side.

The facts dont chance depending on which individual politicians support in or out. Are we not grown up enough to judge the situation on the facts ?

“The best computer is a man, and it’s the only one that can be mass-produced by unskilled labour.”

I'm certainly not judging my decision based on characters but it has to be said that none of those who have declared for the EXIT campaign fill me with any confidence whatsoever. Gove, Galloway, Farage, Duncan-Smith are either failed politicians or politicians whose reputations are badly tarnished. Boris Johnson has sided with the one that he thinks will benefit himself only.

The problem is that facts are going to be hard to come by especially when the mainstream media continue to perpetuate the same Euro-myths time after time.

They are not meant to fill you with confidence. Confidence comes from within. With the WWW , we have never had access to more facts. The net is awash with facts, there is no reason why we have to take any notice of politicians, we should be able to make our own mind up. There is no logic in relying on politicians as our main conduit for facts.

On a wider note, events like this do tend to focus ones thoughts on the value of democracy. Like many on the forum, I will be spend much time over the next weeks exchanging ideas, surfing for reports, listening to debates etc etc. And yet I know that my vote carries the same weight as an idiot somewhere around the UK who knows little and cares even less,

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Winston Churchill

“The best computer is a man, and it’s the only one that can be mass-produced by unskilled labour.”

"What did the EU ever do for us?Not much, apart from: providing 57% of our trade; structural funding to areas hit by industrial decline; clean beaches and rivers; cleaner air; lead free petrol; restrictions on landfill dumping;a recycling culture; cheaper mobile charges; cheaper air travel; improved consumer protection and food labelling;a ban on growth hormones and other harmful food additives; better product safety; single market competition bringing quality improvements and better industrial performance; break up of monopolies; Europe-wide patent and copyright protection; no paperwork or customs for exports throughout the single market;price transparency and removal of commission on currency exchanges across the eurozone;freedom to travel, live and work across Europe;funded opportunities for young people to undertake study or work placements abroad;access to European health services; labour protection and enhanced social welfare; smoke-free workplaces; equal pay legislation;holiday entitlement; the right not to work more than a 48-hour week without overtime; strongest wildlife protection in the world; improved animal welfare in food production; EU-funded research and industrial collaboration; EU representation in international forums; bloc EEA negotiation at the WTO; EU diplomatic efforts to uphold the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; European arrest warrant; cross border policing to combat human trafficking, arms and drug smuggling; counter terrorism intelligence; European civil and military co-operation in post-conflict zones in Europe and Africa; support for democracy and human rights across Europe and beyond; investment across Europe contributing to better living standards and educational, social and cultural capital.All of this is nothing compared with its greatest achievements: the EU has for 60 years been the foundation of peace between European neighbours after centuries of bloodshed. It furthermore assisted the extraordinary political, social and economic transformation of 13 former dictatorships, now EU members, since 1980. Now the union faces major challenges brought on by neoliberal economic globalisation, and worsened by its own systemic weaknesses. It is taking measures to overcome these. We in the UK should reflect on whether our net contribution of £7bn out of total government expenditure of £695bn is good value. We must play a full part in enabling the union to be a force for good in a multi-polar global future.

How can they help form our opinion when the nature of our parliament is Government versus opposition? By its nature, they will provide opposing versions of reality. They cant all help us and they cant all be right. They are just humans and no more or less likely to be wrong than you and I and, by definition on this issue, a large percentage of politicians have to be wrong.

Facts should be the main opinion former and you will find few facts coming from politicians. The best thing we should do when listening to these guys (on both sides) is to not trust them and check ourselves.

I have little time for most politicians, the issue forces you to side with people you don't respect. There is no avoiding it. We should also consider that, given the complex nature of the question and how many variables, it is perfectly possible to say "I dont know". But politicians will rarely say this (partly because so many voters want to trust them and admitting ignorance is not seen as a good thing). We live in an era when celebrities are happy to go on Question Time and give opinions on topics that they clearly have no specialist experience or expertise but we still listen to them. I have never seen anyone on QT say "I don't know, ask someone else on the panel."

Its perfectly feasible that 60% of the voters (including myself) will choose one option and it turns out to be wrong (anyone see The Big Short?), how many of us can honestly say that we have a complete understanding of the facts and the variables? Most people will be voting with their heart based on emotions (fear, patriotism etc) rather than trawling through hard facts. Most politicians know this and appeal to our emotions rather than supply us with facts. Part of me thinks that we may as well toss a coin (at least the coin has no hidden agenda)

"So what are the three hardest words? Conventional wisdom suggests: “I love you.” Readers of this blog recently offered up their suggestions of challenging three-word phrases. In their new book Think Like a Freak, Stephen Dubner and Steve Levitt tell us that the hardest three words in the English language are “I don’t know,” and that our inability to say these words more often can have huge consequences.

On this week’s podcast, we explore where this unwillingness to say “I don’t know” comes from. Dubner talks to Amanda Waterman, a professor of developmental psychology at the University of Leeds. Much of her research (gated papers here and here) is about people’s unwillingness – especially children’s unwillingness – to say “I don’t know.” Waterman has found that the vast majority of kids pretend they know the answer to unanswerable questions."

I'll tell you one thing the French would change faster than light if we leave: English would stop being a working language of the EU, and our country hasn't the best record of linguistic cunning. Easy way to raise a barrier to British companies and goods!

And a thing the prolific lister of benefits didn't mention: Europe-wide protection for our regional goods e.g. Cheddar cheese, Cornish pasties, Melton Mowbray pies: of course this not only means companies in Europe can't transgress without challenge, but companies outside Europe can't sell into Europe without the same issue.

Personally david Cameron this week should be back in Brussels finding out exactly what, and when things would happen if we leave so we have 100% of the facts, not just one side of the story . The whole leave campaign can not answer the question of what will happen when we leave and when. We do not have all the facts at the moment and we needs facts not personalities.

farnboroughrob wrote:Personally david Cameron this week should be back in Brussels finding out exactly what, and when things would happen if we leave so we have 100% of the facts, not just one side of the story . The whole leave campaign can not answer the question of what will happen when we leave and when. We do not have all the facts at the moment and we needs facts not personalities.

You won't know until you leave. If the UK votes to leave it will be up to two years of exit negotiations - deciding how the Uk will interact with the EU. Only after those negotiations will you know.

farnboroughrob wrote:Personally david Cameron this week should be back in Brussels finding out exactly what, and when things would happen if we leave so we have 100% of the facts, not just one side of the story . The whole leave campaign can not answer the question of what will happen when we leave and when. We do not have all the facts at the moment and we needs facts not personalities.

Fact is no-one knows what the EU will do as the process is only triggered by a nation wanting to leave the EU which has never happened before and hasn't yet either.

The process of leaving the EU is a two year negotiation period known as "Article 50" where all the trade agreements.etc are sorted.

At the end of the two year period, if nothing has been agreed then unless all EU states agree to extend the negotiation period, you leave the EU agreement or no agreement.

Similarly, Cameron's deal only begins if we vote to stay in and not before, neither does it begin if we vote to leave.

It was interesting listening to the Commons debate today, the leave campaign are almost delusional stating there are many methods by which we can leave the EU including where we tell the EU what terms we are leaving on.... until it was pointed out to them that there is one single legal method, and that is Article 50. It was also pointed out that to trade with the EU you must trade with them on their rules.... another delusional claim of the leave campaign is that we will be able to dictate the trading terms to our advantage.

Personal attacks and brow beating in a few posts. shame. Lots of circular scaremongering. Dave is the leader on this one. Can't help thinking Tony's special representative mantle is his ambition.Poll above is pretty evenly balanced. But not many engaged so not representative either way.

Trade. Money talks and trade has continued forever, it will continue. China despite talks has no formal treaty on trade deals with the EU, yes I checked the list, yet it is highly likely that all have a home fully loaded with far eastern manufactured products. True we will need to conform to the EU "rules on trade" in or out, yet we do that for virtually every country we export too so no problem here.

Optimists will hope that common sense will prevail. Or will the heavy flow of lorries bringing goods to the UK stop in two years time? So instead of the daily stream of lorries from say: Budapest, Hungry, and the huge distribution from that port suddenly stop? Or would imports come to once busy UK ports? There are options perhaps, should the unlikely predictions of trade collapse be right.

I noted the, "What have the Europeans (Romans) ever done for us" post with a chuckle. Remember "Romani ite domum" The list for what has been done by the EU is laudable, in parts, but that list did not include what has not gone quite so well. Brief example: paying farmers not to farm some of the best arable land in the world to control the price and demand. While others starve? Progressive? It is surely not a surprise that matters reserved for the EU for many years mean they have created some legislation, after all that's what they are there for, but does not mean that some of that legislation would not have come to pass here if we had not been in?

The post about the French speaking French provided another chuckle, it is aleady de regueure cherie, and translation into every language is ça n'arrivera pas! I admire the way the French have maintained their way of life and institutions, we should have too.

TKK 140 wrote:Personal attacks and brow beating in a few posts. shame.

Only against the politicians involved - I'm sure they've heard worse.

Anyone who has been involved in trade within the EU knows how easy it is and how difficult it is dealing with countries outside the EU. Especially the US.

The farmer's subsidy is a good example of something within the EU that needs changing. Nobody is saying the EU is perfect but the way to change it is from within. We certainly won't be able to change if we're out. It will still affect the way we do business - whether we're in or out.

Fact - inside the EU, UK businesses make use of the FTA with the USA making trade as easy as you say.

Fact - outside the EU, UK businesses won't have an FTA with the USA and the US have said they won't agree one. The result being a 2.5% tariff on all exports to the USA from the UK over and above what was being paid whilst in the EU as a bare minimum.

It's a bit like living in a nice house where the roof needs a bit of repair do you a) repair the roof or b) leave and buy a new house somewhere cheaper and not so nice. If the rest of the house suits your needs why not stay and fix it?

The last company I worked for tried to do business in the US and basically if there is a company in the US that can provide the same services then you needn't even bother bidding. Easy? No, I don't think so. In the EU though you just go a and do it - same regulatory framework, same tax and finance laws - now makes it much easier.

The UK would have to negotiate its own trade agreements with all other countries from scratch. According to man on the radio yesterday, the agreement with Canada took 7 years to put in place.

One of the patterns here is that one side paints a very dark picture of leaving with seven year trade negotiations with all other EU countries, France refusing to speak Engilsh, 3 million UK citizens having to return home etc etc and the other side painting a very bright picture of minimum disruption.

The real and dull answer is that it will be some where in between and it would be refreshing to hear from some outers that coming out will have some issues , its not a perfect solution and we will have to deal with those issues and there will be significant expense in certain areas. BUT , as all politicians do, they will not give ground and so we get a very black and white picture of heaven or hell rather than the more boring reality of market economics.

Rather than paint a picture of the social and economic meltdown that some inners are portraying, a trip to a non-member country may be worthwhile to see that it is perfectly possible to operate outside of the EU without a meltdown. Its very easy to spread fear and discontent when, in reality, people get on with their lives, negotiations take place and compromises are made.

I have seen many lists of what the EU has done for us and we can exchange these lists for the next few months if we want. But , again, the reality is that for every good thing that the EU has done, there is a bad thing and vice versa. The issue has to be judged as a whole and obviously for some, certain issues like sovereignty make it worth it. The pragmatism of giving away some sovereignty for economic growth/stability versus the more principled view of a proud, independent nation, making its own way.

“The best computer is a man, and it’s the only one that can be mass-produced by unskilled labour.”

Oh dear no lightning 2 then? Course not. The UK and USA are huge trading partners. The US are currently negotiating a trade deal and deeply involved with aligning standards. So as the US want is to stay for this reasons there current position is understandable even if it's one individual. Things change and governments will adapt.

TKK 140 wrote:The UK and USA are huge trading partners. The US are currently negotiating a trade deal and deeply involved with aligning standards. So as the US want is to stay for this reasons there current position is understandable even if it's one individual. Things change and governments will adapt.

Well, if I post a list, that just as bad as the other lists, for every plus, the us a minus, the best list is an inclusive one,

but here is a good one:

But isn't the EU bad at managing its own finances?

Oh yes. It's not just individuals who overspend on their credit cards. The EU was accused earlier this month of “breathtaking hypocrisy” in demanding the extra payment from Westminster despite failing its own audit.

The European Court of Auditors found that £109bn out of a total of £117bn spent by the EU in 2013 was "affected by material error”.

It means that the accounts submitted by Brussels have not been given the all clear for almost two decades.

I get fined if my business does not submit audited/approved accounts within the strict time period. If a large multinational ran its accounts like the EU, it's directors would be in prison by now. Why do we have certain standards for the administration of share holders money but a much lower standard for tax payers money?

Last edited by pbeardmore on Tue 23 Feb 2016, 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

“The best computer is a man, and it’s the only one that can be mass-produced by unskilled labour.”

If we hadn't been paying £7bn to the EU each year the UK govt could have funded that out of the money they saved on contributions - Whether they would have chosen to spend it is a different argument but the money would been there to be spent.

Picking one thing off your list at random the Eden Project doesn't seem to be a massive success or a good way of spending £50m - "The Eden Trust revealed a trading loss of £1.3 million for 2012-13,on a turnover of £25.4 million. The Eden Project had posted a surplus of £136,000 for the previous year." I'm struggle to see how you can justify charging a family nearly £70 to look around a glorified garden and then make a loss of £1.3m.

I suspect a lot of the other items on the list are basically nothing more than 'vanity projects' as well. Why spend large sums of money on airports that few will use (due to the sparsity of population in Cornwall) or on dental training hospital that would be better placed in areas of greater population density such as Bristol?

Why spend £50m of tax payers money on broadband when that is something the broadband providers (ie BT) shd be funding out of their development budget funded by their huge profits? I'm sure I could go on down the list but basically your list looks like a list of projects that have frittered tax payers money away on projects that should have either been been funded out of the development budget of the private company concerned or were only sanctioned because they had EU money to spend and if they didn't spend it they would lose it from the next years budget.

Not having a go at you Kyle, just your examples, which just seem to serve to highlight the inefficiency of the EU and the business model of spending money for the sake of it to keep people on imaginary jobs in projects such as those you list.

Personally I think the EU has evolved way beyond what it was ever intended as when the UK voted to join and if it can't/ won't be rolled back to being just a free trade organisation then we should leave. With globalisation trades which can be moved to countries with cheaper overheads have already left the UK years ago - those that remain are here because we have some sort of specialist skill base which can't be found elsewhere therefore whether we are in or out of the EU the people requiring those goods/ services will still trade with us. There may be currency and share price instability for a couple of years but like after every recession these will bounce back in time.